Viscount Haldane. -

The appellants are two of the plaintiffs in an action in the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements (Singapore Settlement) which they brought against the respondents. The first respondent was sued as administratrix of the appellants' nephew, Hadji Mohamed Said, deceased, and the second respondent was sued as the administrator of their niece, Etendir binte Laplamni, deceased. The claim was to set aside an assignment, dated 19th September 1921, under which the appellants and a deceased sister, who was originally to be their co-plaintiff, had assigned to Hadji Mohamed Said and Etendir binte Laplamni all their interest in leasehold property belonging to them at Singapore, and for an account of all moneys received by Hadji Mohamed Said since the 30th December 1919, the date on which he had been appointed as the plaintiffs' attorney in regard to the leasehold property in dispute. The only question in this appeal is whether, in the circumstances, and having regard to the alleged fiduciary position of the attorney, the assignment was binding on the plaintiffs. The first respondent as administratrix of Hadji did not dispute her liability to account for the rents received by him down to the date of the assignment.

The action was tried before the Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, Sir Walter Shaw, in March 1925. He decided that there was no undue influence and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal in June 1925, affirmed the dismissal.

It is important to see what the claim was as originally launched. The plaintiffs were old ladies over 70. They lived mainly in Borneo and were alleged to have been acquainted neither with English nor with Malay. The assignment was drawn up in English. The statement of claim charges a fraudulent misrepresentation made by Hadji that the assignment was merely a document enabling him to take over the administration of the property after the deaths of the plaintiffs. There was expressed in the document, as consideration for the grant in it, a covenant to maintain the plaintiffs for the rest of their respective lives. The allegation in the statement of claim was that this consideration was a mere pretence to which effect was never given. The defence denied the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and the unreality of the consideration expressed.

The trial Judge held that there was no proof of fraud. The case before him had also been put on the ground of undue influence and he dismissed it in so far as concerned this ground also. The Court of Appeal agreed. The judgment in the first Court does not go into the circumstances in detail, and it is necessary, in order to appreciate their bearing, to restate them. The plaintiffs were three Bugis ladies, two of them married and the third a widow. They lived in Borneo, a long way off, where they had other property, and they also owned the property in question in Singapore. This was looked after for them by their nephew, Hadji Mohamed, who lived in Singapore, and who used to collect the rents and was allowed, temporarily at least, to keep them in his own hands. In 1919 the ladies had given Hadji Mohamed a power of attorney to "adjust all affairs respecting our houses and property ..." and to receive payments and give receipts. In 1921 the ladies who were Mohammedans and, as already stated, of advanced ages, decided to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. They landed in Singapore on route, and took the opportunity of arranging their affairs. They appear to have consulted a Mr. Bazeley, a solicitor of the firm of Allen and Gledhill at Singapore. He and his assistant, Mr. James, gave evidence very fairly. They prepared the deed and wills to be presently referred to, and acted for all parties, but there is nothing to show how or by whom they came to be employed or who paid their costs. In 1919 they appear to have acted for the ladies in recovering from a previous agent, Hadji Samsudan, the title-deeds of the property. That agent appears to have been indeb